• Home
  • Current News
  • How Anthony Watts and Christopher Monckton Helped Prove Slayer Rationalism

How Anthony Watts and Christopher Monckton Helped Prove Slayer Rationalism

Written by Joseph E Postma

Their Research: I had truly forgotten just how much work Mr. Watts had done in helping prove the Slayer’s position that there is no greenhouse effect.  watts moncktonThe following 3 articles are all tied together but the 2nd article is where Anthony and a friend of his actually did some experimentation which ended up totally supporting the Slayers position that there is no greenhouse effect as depicted in climate alarm science:

Slayers “Putting Up” not “Shutting Up”

Slaying Watts with Watts

Closing with Watts

It is really amazing what happened in the 2nd article.  Watts and a friend (pictured) of his did some experiment, did not quantify their results, but concluded that they had found evidence of the greenhouse effect.  Just read what happened.  It’s amazing.  They reached the exact opposite conclusion of what their experiments demonstrated because they did not do an actual scientific analysis of their own results.  Then when the quantitative analysis was done for them, and the actual results found out, they ran from it and pretended like it never happened.

Then here is a paper from Christopher Monckton from 2007.  Some important findings are:

This instantly-recognizable “hot-spot” on the altitude-versus-latitude plot of predicted rates of temperature change is the unmistakable signature or characteristic fingerprint of greenhouse warming which we have been looking for. The warming which the computer models predict will arise from growing emissions of greenhouse gases is visibly distinct in its magnitude and in its altitudinal and latitudinal distribution from any other cause of natural or anthropogenic warming.

All five of the computer models whose plots are shown above unmistakably predict the characteristic “hot-spot” signature that UN’s graphs show to be unique to warming of the atmosphere caused by emissions of greenhouse gases. But does observation demonstrate what the models predict?

Real-world temperatures in the upper atmosphere have been measured with balloons since at least the 1960’s and with microwave satellite sensors since 1979. However, the Hadley Centre’s plot of real-world radiosonde observations does not demonstrate the “global warming hot-spot” at all. The predicted phenomenon is startlingly and entirely absent from the observational record

Applying Occam’s Razor, the simplest explanation for the discrepancy between theoretical modeling and realworld observation is that the models on which the case for alarm about climate change are based are very substantially overestimating the effect of anthropogenic greenhouse warming on global temperatures.

The conclusion of this three-part experiment is clear – all three of the tests fail to show any evidence of the expected differential between tropical and non-tropical rates of change in temperature, or between the tropical radiosonde and satellite readings. The tropical mid-troposphere “hot-spot” indeed seems to be absent. Since theoretical modeling and real-world observation differ so markedly, and since all or nearly all observations from many sources over half a century, confirmed by our own experiment, fail to establish the model-predicted
existence of the tropical mid-troposphere “hot-spot” signature of greenhouse warming caused by human activities, either the models or the observations or both are wrong.

Some fundamental considerations in elementary atmospheric physics, as well as some additional atmospheric measurements, suggest that it is the theoretical models that are more likely to be in error than the data from actual observations.

Given the startlingly close correlation between outgoing long-wave radiation in the tropics and global temperatures throughout the 30-year period of satellite observation, a correlation which atmospheric physics would lead us to expect and which is indeed observed, one question remains. Is there a similarly close correlation between atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and global temperatures? The answer is No.

the plot from the Hadley Centre’s radiosondes, showing actual, observed temperatures in the troposphere, presented in the same altitude-vs-latitude fashion as the predictions made by the five computer models, the computer models’ repeatedly-predicted “hot-spot” signature of anthropogenic greenhouse warming is entirely absent. Indeed, very nearly all observational data on mid-tropospheric temperature trends over the past half-century show no tropical “hot-spot” at all; and, in the one record that shows it at all, the magnitude of the observed effect is insufficient to justify the UN’s choice of a very high central estimate of climate sensitivity to anthropogenic enhancement of the greenhouse effect. Our own small experiment also fails to demonstrate even the existence of the “hot-spot” fingerprint of anthropogenic warming.

Here is how this works Mr. Monckton:  A cause is postulated which is supposed to have a measurable effect.  The effect is supposed to be measurable, that is, significant enough to measure.  Therefore, if the effect is not measurable because it can not be found empirically, then the cause does not occur and does not exist.  To continue to believe in a cause which has no effect is nothing to do with science and the scientific method.

Their Results

The Slayers would like to thank Mr. Monckton and Mr. Watts for doing the research, and also the experimentation, which demonstrated that they could not find evidence of a radiative greenhouse effect, and thus, supporting the Slayer’s rationalism and logical analysis of the climate alarm debate.  It turns out that the very basis of climate alarm, its conception of a greenhouse effect, seem to not exist at all.  It’s not that there’s a tiny bit of climate alarm caused by carbon dioxide, and not enough to worry about, it is that there is no basis to climate alarm (pseudo)science whatsoever.

As to the question of the subsequent behaviour of Mr. Monckton and Mr. Watts regarding their own findings, I can only speculate:

Mr. Monckton did work researching the greenhouse effect and found that it couldn’t be detected. That was in 2007 and was one of the reasons way back then that I became interested in the foundation of climate alarm, which is its conception of a radiative greenhouse effect. His work leads exactly to doing this – to questioning the existence of the alarmist’s greenhouse effect. What has changed the direction of his research since then and why can he not admit the possibility of what his own work shows? I have no clear or rational answer to this. If a cause is supposed to have an effect and the effect which should be measurable can not be measured, then there’s something wrong with the idea of the cause. This could not be simpler and more proper and logical and honest.

Then we see how Watts himself and a friend of his did some experimentation which quite directly proved the position of the Slayers, but they just pretended it didn’t by doing the “convenient” thing of not actually quantifying their results and thus concluding what they simply desired to instead.

So what are we dealing with? This has been a question of mine for years. Stupidity, or shilling? Stupidity, or gatekeeping? Stupidity, or playing for the other side? As I said, I have come to no clear answer to this because the answer can not be justified in their scientific findings and its logic. Therefore the answer must have to do with something else…something “human”.

Whether they realize it or not, what they’re doing is now quite unhelpful to scientific rationalism and skepticism of climate alarm science, and they’re doing it right out in the wide open, and it has been documented, and it has been publicized.  It’s not the alarmists who are the problem anymore. It is the (shill?) gatekeepers(?) who won’t allow the precise fundamental type of criticism to occur which would destroy the pseudoscience of alarmism at its very base. As long as the alarmist conception of the radiative greenhouse effect exists then they (alarmists) have a leg to stand on, and all the debates about sensitivity and all the other minutia only drags on and achieves nothing and worst of all gives legitimacy to the pseudoscience by treating it as if it is science. Whereas if you destroy the base, their greenhouse effect, then you destroy the entire thing…and it can be destroyed because Mr. Monckton and Mr. Watts have some of the very type of evidence required to do it.

What is motivating them to stop it all from getting out? Is it as simple as that they would both no longer have a following, or possibly even work, if climate alarm was finally shut down for good? They get quite a bit of attention as long as the debate continues. They get on TV, on radio, they get paid for it various ways, etc etc. Is it that?  Ego? As I said I can not answer this form of question but it certainly can be concluded that they’re not helping, and in fact, that they are hindering actual rationalism and scientific analysis from occurring.

Therefore, the solution is to treat the situation as if they are some form of operative working for the alarmist side.  The situation could be treated as if their publicity and media presence and following was created as a stop-gap which, while promoting debate of the minutia of climate alarm science as “skeptics”, actually put up a wall preventing the precise type of criticism which would remove the basis of climate alarm altogether.  The basis of climate alarm is its conception of a radiative greenhouse effect and so if you want to protect climate alarm and only pretend to criticize it, then one might criticize the minutia relating to climate sensitivity and related things while actually disallowing fundamental criticism of its radiative greenhouse effect.

And so if one treats the situation as if this is what is occurring, then the proper thing to do is to no longer engage with that situation and therefore to flank it using some other means and strategy.  And it is actually a lot simpler and easier to do that.

Read more at climateofsophistry.com